PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION
Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion
Ohio Supreme Court Challenge
Upholding Marriage in Light of No-Fault Divorce
September 13, 2007 1:21 pm
Mary’s Advocates
www.marysadvocates.org
An Ohio mother, Mrs. Bai Macfarlane submitted a challenge to the Ohio Supreme Court asking that a mandate and a prohibition be given to the Cuyahoga County Court. The complaint to the Ohio Supreme Court, or writ of mandamus, was submitted yesterday morning, September 12th, and the full text is available on the Internet.
http://www.marysadvocates.org/ohiocase/writofmandamus.html
Macfarlane argues, “The local court is misinterpreting the US and Ohio Constitutions by forbidding me to introduce evidence which could help me better protect my children and myself from routine no-fault divorce orders. Domestic Relations Court says my evidence is unconstitutional because of the ‘separation of church and state.’ I need to establish that my divorced husband and I both voluntarily agree to follow the rules of the Roman Catholic Church regarding our obligations toward each other and our children. All traditional Christian marriages are receiving unconstitutional treatment in no-fault divorce.”
One of the exhibits that Mrs. Macfarlane wants to use when questioning her husband is an excerpt from “Familiaris Consortio” stating, “While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family. Furthermore, the mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome.” (Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio Of Pope John Paul II section 23)
Macfarlane says, “I do not live in a totalitarian country, and while taking children from parents is a specified goal of the communists, it certainly was never a goal adopted by the US voters.”
Scott Somerville, a Harvard trained lawyer and president of Lampstand Press, said in an e-mail interview, “The First Amendment does not allow the courts to favor religion, but it does not allow them to disfavor it, either. It is unjust for a court to ignore religious vows—systematically unjust. When two people bind themselves by explicitly religious vows that include a promise to submit their differences to arbitration by their church, it matters whether they still claim to belong to that church—especially when a court steps in to set aside that sacred promise.”
The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Ohio or the US Constitution.
Fellow activists, such as Judith Brimbaugh, author of “Judge Please Don’t Strike That Gavel on My Marriage” and director of “Restoration of the Family” agree that, “no-fault divorce is inhumane and unconstitutional.” Following up after a phone interview Brimbaugh stated,
“Why should a person who breaks the marital contract/covenant (and comes into court with “unclean hands”) be empowered to unilaterally force a No-fault Divorce and then additionally to be rewarded with the children, child-support payments, the marital home, and other assets–especially if the “defendant/respondent” has been a faithful spouse? In all other areas of contractual law the offending party; i.e., party who seeks to breaks a contract is not the prevailing party and is not rewarded. To the contrary such a person would most likely have to pay damages.”
Rev. Gary Coulter, catholic priest and canon lawyer, stated in an interview, “The bishop is the only one who can give authorization for someone following Catholic rules to approach a civil court for separation. If someone feels an unjust ecclesiastic determination was provided, the offended party has the right to appeal both a judicial decision and a bishop’s decree. When making an ecclesiastic separation determination, the church must include findings for upbringing of children and support.”
Communist goals presented to the US House of Representatives in 1963 included, “40- Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce,” and “41- Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.”
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm#Documention
Earlier, when their four children were between the ages of three and twelve, the courts had taken Macfarlane’s children from her, a stay-at-home homeschooling mom. Now she is being sued for child support.
Mary’s Advocates is the non-for-profit work started by Mrs. Macfarlane emphasizing the constitutional rights of those who choose to enter traditional marriage, namely the right to uphold the intentions of both parties in a contract, and the right to freely practice one’s religion.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Marie (Bai) Macfarlane, Mother
e-mail: bai.macfarlane (at) adelphia.net
Phone: 440-871-5404
Scott Somerville, Harvard University Law School Graduate
President of Lampstand Press, Speaker
e-mail: scott (at) tapestryofgrace.com
Phone: 1 (800) 705 7487
Judith Brimbaugh, President/Founder: Restoration of the Family
e-mail: Marriage (at) RestorationOfTheFamily.com
Phone: 407-365-4086
Rev. Gary Coulter, Canon Lawyer, Pastor St. Mary Church, Ashland, NE
e-mail: frcoulter (at) yahoo.com
Church Phone:
402-944-3554
Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!
